"I am not a woman, but a man."
Translation:Femina non sum, sed vir.
Because what your translations translates to is " I, I am not a woman, but a man." "Sum" is the singular form of " To Be" and Ego is the personal pronoun. Also, in Latin the structure typically is set up as; subject, direct object, and then the verb. Unlike English where the direct object goes after the verb.
Latin, like most of its child languages, drops pronouns unless the pronoun is required for avoidance of ambiguity or for emphasis. The exception amongst its child languages is French where the pronoun is not omitted. Spanish, Italian and Romanian all drop the pronoun when it is the subject. In Portuguese the object pronoun can also be dropped when the context allows. The variation in verb conjugations allows the pronoun required to be understood from the form that the verb takes which makes it redundant. In French, the difference in the form of the verb taken by each pronoun is less apparent (especailly in spoken rather than written French) than in the other romance languages so the pronoun is not omitted.
Wrote "Ego sum non femina, sed vir" but got it wrong. As a total beginner with an understanding of general language and grammar concepts, I'm not sure if I'm wrong here or if the question just didn't accept my word order. From the other comments, I see that this answer may be valid, but it might be an awkward phrasing.
Doing the question again, "Ego femina non sum, sed vir" was accepted (and I know that as in Spanish, the article is optional). I guess I'm wondering if "non sum" as a subphrase is preferred. In essence, when negating a phrase such as Ï am not X", whether the negation ("non") preceding the verb directly instead of the subject or object is the standard rule, even if it can be bent.
Can someone explain why "Sum non femina, sed vir" doesn't work for "I am not a woman, but a man"? Sum means "I am", non means "not", femina means "woman", sed means "but" and vir means "man". So what I wrote should roughly translate to "I am not a woman, but a man." So why did I get it worng?
Perce-neige gave some explanations earlier in this thread.
Basically, it is better to place the negation before the term it negates. Here, what is negated is the verb "sum" so "non" has to be placed before it : "Femina non sum" (or "Non sum femina" in a less "canonical" order).
If "non" is located before "femina", we understand that it is "femina" we negate so "Non femina sum" or "Sum non femina" would translate roughly as "I am a not-woman".
Most of the time, Latin follows that order : Subject - Object - Verb So for the sentence at hand, it would be "(Ego) femina non sum", with the subject pronoun most often omitted except for emphasis.
But this is not an obligation; word order in Latin is pretty fluid. The declensions allow us to tell which word is subject, which is object... so we do not need word order to determine the functions. So "Corinna non est puella" is possible too, even if a more "canonical" order would be "Corinna puella non est".
That is not correct. Word order matters, but not the way people often think. There was by the time of Classical Latin an established standard for (at least) written Latin, preferring SOV (subject, object, verb). Further, prepositions should be prefixed; adverbs had their place based on function; and so on. Poetry is a different game, and should not be confused with regular spoken Latin; if everyone spoke like the poets, it would be something akin to having Yoda-speak mixed with Chinese sentence structure. So yes, word order matters; deviation from the standard word order emphasised different parts of the sentence.
That's from Jerome's Latin rendering of the Bible, so that would be fourth century, or early fifth. That pattern of VS(O) seems to be very common in his Bible, I don't know whether it is imitating some feature of Hebrew or what, but it's not typical of his other writings, which are very classical in character.
Your point stands that variations in word order are frequent and not necessarily due to shifts in emphasis. Sometimes a word order is chosen for rhythm's sake, or variety's, or clarity's, or to create an artful pattern or a sense of balance, or sometimes to upset a sense of balance. This is true of all registers of Latin, though in poetry various disruptions are regular that would otherwise be unthinkable.
I don't know why you are so severe with this app. When you should know the way Duo works, you seem to have attended many courses here, so I hope you do.
Duo adds the alternative solutions when you use the report button to add them to the database, so: what is the problem, and why are you so negative? It's a hard work, and reading hard comments is painful.
Latin word order is flexible, meaning you can shake things up for emphasis. The standard word order in classical times was subject–object–verb, a word order which seems to have been established for the purpose of legal writing. Nōn sum fēmina would in English be something like ‘Woman I am not’; Sum nōn fēmina would be close to ‘Not am I [a] woman’. There is in English, too, some—with regards to order of words—freedom. But as you can see, it quickly gets weird, calling for attention, when you overdo it; ‘Sum nōn fēmina’ is a good example in Latin if overdoing it.
There is, however extremes in classical Latin too. There is a story of someone who had been looking forward for the longest time to hearing a magistrate speak. (Might it have been the speaker was Cicero? I cannot remember.) When the husband came home the wife asked how it was, to which he replied it wasn’t all that much: ‘I left after half an hour; he hadn’t gotten to the verb yet.’